p. friedlingstein and ic prentice paris/bristol/exeter/sidney + inputs from v. masson-delmotte

23
P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Upload: wyatt-neal

Post on 28-Mar-2015

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

P. Friedlingstein and IC PrenticeParis/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney

+ inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Page 2: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

The magnitude of the problem

Brussels, May. 27th 2009

Uncertainty due to the carbon cycle uncertainty

2.6 – 4.1 °C2.4 – 5.6 °C

830 ppm

730 – 1000 ppm

Higher [CO2], larger climate change

IPCC, 2007

Page 3: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Climate-Carbon Cycle FeedbackCO2 = EMI - Fao - Fab (1) T = CO2 + Tind (2)with: Fao = ao CO2 +ao T (3) Fab = ab CO2 +ab T (4)

(3) and (4) in (1), then (1) in (2) gives:

T = 1/(1-g) Tunc

with:g = (ao + ab )/(1+ ao + ab)

Page 4: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Climate-Carbon Cycle FeedbackT = 1/(1-g) Tunc = f Tunc

g = (ao + ab )/(1+ ao + ab)

g is the gain of the climate-carbon cycle feedback

f = 1/(1-g) f is the feedback factor

and is the carbon cycle sensitivity to climate (C/T)

Page 5: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Climate-Carbon Cycle Feedback

Carbon cycle sensitivity

to climate

gClimate carbon cycle

gain

0.04 – 0.30

30 – 200 GtC/K

Page 6: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

What are the available observations ?

Page 7: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Glacial interglacial CO2 – Temperature

g =ΔT

ΔCO2

×ΔCO2

ΔT

Page 8: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Climate sensitivity is estimated here from 2xCO2 GCMs estimates,in the absence of physical feedbacks (black body response only).

Two caveats

Glacial interglacial CO2 – Temperature

Page 9: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

1. Physical feedbacks

g =ΔT

ΔCO2

×ΔCO2

ΔT

g = α ×γ

1+ β

Torn and Harte, 2006

Friedlingstein et al., 2006

is the climate sensitivity, accounting for all physical feedbacks

TTH 06 =ΔF

λ BB

λ BB = 3.8Wm−2K −1

ΔTF 06 =ΔF

λ i∑λ i∑ =1.3 ± 0.3Wm−2K −1

gG-IG= 0.04*3.8/1.3= 0.12

Page 10: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Using the Full EPICA record

Page 11: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Glacial interglacial CO2 – Temperature

CO2

ΔT= 7.8633 ppm/K and taking from AR4 gG-IG= 0.08

T

ΔCO2

Page 12: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

2. Does this help for future projections?

Page 13: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Last Millennium and LIA

Page 14: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Last Millennium and LIA

dCO2/dT= 50.6 ppm/K dCO2/dT= 39.9 ppm/K

Page 15: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Last Millennium and LIA

Page 16: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Last Millennium and LIA

dCO2/dT= 7.7 [ 1.7 – 21.4] ppm/K

Confusion in terminology …

dCO2/dT is neither g no …

Page 17: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Last Millennium and LIA

dCO2/dT= 7.7 [ 1.7 – 21.4] ppm/K

One could derive the gain g:(again, taking dT/dCO2

from 2xCO2 sensitivity)

gLIA = 7.7 ×3[2 to 4.5]

286= 0.08 [0.05 to 0.12]

Page 18: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

T

biosphere

Ocean

CO2 = γΔT − βΔCO2

i.e.

CO2

ΔT=

γ

1+ β

Cout = γΔT

CO2

time

Cin = βΔC

Last Millennium and LIAOr one could derive

But one needs to know on millenium time scales …

Page 19: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Interannual variability of CO2G

t. C

per

yea

rS

OI

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 19851980 1990 1995 2000

8

6

4

2

30

0

-30

CO2 Annual Growth Rate

Page 20: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Interannual variability of CO2

dCO2/dT= 2.9 ppm/K

= -90 GtC/K gG-IG= 0.03

Page 21: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

Summary

gain Carbon sensitivity to climate (GtC/K)

G-IG 0.08 ≈ -110*

LIA 0.08 ≈  -110*

IAV 0.03** -90

C4MIP models average

0.15 -109

*assuming ≈ 5.5, i.e. AF≈ 0.15**assuming equilibrium response

Palaeo and historical CO2 variability could help to constraintClimate carbon cycle feedbackEstimate of seems to be more robust than g across timescales

Page 22: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte

SummaryPalaeo and historical CO2 variability might help

to constrain Climate carbon cycle feedbackHowever, large uncertainties on data and on

use of dataEstimate of seems to be more robust than g

across timescales. Is this accidental ?Do we get the “right” number for the right

reason (right process) ?Best way is certainly not what I just

presented...

We should simulate the past rather thanplay with past data to infer future response

Page 23: P. Friedlingstein and IC Prentice Paris/Bristol/Exeter/Sidney + inputs from V. Masson-Delmotte